Every four years
America elects it's president and every four years there is the same discussion
around "the water cooler" at work: why do we have the electoral
college and not just a simple majority vote?
A few smaller countries around the world actually do this and it does
work. Why a system that seems more
complicated and to some even mysterious?
After researching the electoral college, I've come to the conclusion
that it was one of the wiser ideas our founders came up with because it does a
great job of ensuring that who achieves the presidency represents a broader
coalition of people than just the people who live in our most populous states
and urban areas.
First of all a
little history. Prior to 1828, it was
the house of representatives that elected the president in most cases. Some states did allow the people a direct
vote of the electors, but most operated from the point of view that the house
of representatives was the voice of the people and therefore the will of the
people was represented in their election of the president. America was also a bigger country in the
early days than it is today. There were
no broadcast speeches or election returns, and some places were so remote that
when the people voted on the first Tuesday of November (our constitutionally
mandated election day) it would take a month for the result to make its way to
Washington. Also in the early days there
were parties although different ones than we have now, the election field was
far more open then than it is today. If
it were simply a majority vote in such a case, the person elected could
potentially be unknown to most Americans (as he would not have to have a broad
campaign) and certainly wouldn't be representative of the will of most people,
just the razor thin margin he commanded.
Today, America does
not have a national election but rather 50 state elections that occur
simultaneously. Except for a few states,
there is a winner take all system meaning the majority winner takes all of the
electoral votes. The amount of votes a
particular state has is directly related to its population (which also
determines its number of representatives in congress). With that in mind, there are 538 electoral
votes up for grabs. The magic number to
win is 270 (1 more than half). Obviously
the winning strategy for any candidate is to get a majority in as many
electoral vote rich states as possible.
But that is rarely possible and states have traditional voting patterns
which we call blue (Democrat) and red (Republican) which make it an uphill
climb for one of the two candidates. But
that is the beauty of the electoral system.
Victory in a combination of smaller states (electoral vote wise) can
compensate for a loss in a state like California. But it is also true that by winning the right
combination of states one may win in the electoral college but not win the
majority. That has happened a few times
in U.S. history most notably in the 2000 Bush vs. Gore Campaign. Although the margins between the men in the
popular vote were extremely slender it all came down to the electoral votes of
Florida to settle the matter. But that
is the strategy side of the electoral college.
Functionally,
Americans actually do not vote for president.
They vote for the electoral college members who vote in December and
certify the will of the people. Each
party in each state selects members who will serve as the electors if their
party wins. Most states legally require
the electors to vote for the winning candidate in that state's election, but a
few states do not require it. It has
rarely happened but a few times in our history there have been electors who
voted against the will of the people in their home states. This is known as 'bad-faith voting'. What has never happened yet in American
history is for the winning candidate for president in November to die before the electoral college voted the
next month. If that were to happen, the
winning vice-presidential candidate would be the presumptive nominee, but since
he or she is not elected yet, it could be possible for the electoral college to
select another candidate or throw their votes to the losing candidate who is
still living.
Related to this are
the "what-if's". For instance,
what would happen if we went to a straight majority? My guess is that unless you lived in a major
urban center, you would never get to meet a presidential candidate in
person. There would be no motive for
building a coalition. What if we were
to go back to having our representatives electing our president? Well, it would mean the president would be
the one who made the best back-room deals with congress. Enough wheeling and dealing goes on in
Washington DC already. Critics of the
electoral college system often note that
if you are not a swing-state (one that doesn't have a solid democratic or
republican majority and therefore could go either way), you miss out on a lot
of influence and election spoils (pork barrel spending to hold the winners
influence in the next election). In a
way this is true but this is largely the fault of the voters. After all, if voters would truly get informed
about the issues and vote the candidate not the party-ticket consistently,
virtually all 50 states would become swing-states.
Of course the most
ridiculous part of our election cycle is the states with early primaries or
caucuses. These states (with the exception of Michigan and S.
Carolina) are insignificant in population wise
but are fawned-over by the candidates in hopes of early victories and
the claim of great momentum as the 'people's choice'. No doubt these states enjoy great favor and
favors in between election cycles. While
the two-party system as it currently stands is not without great flaws, think
of what a 3 or even 4 party system would provide us. In that scenario, the winner would be clear,
but would hardly represent a majority of the voting population. Polarizing as just two parties are, with only
two candidates, the winner of the office generally has the support of a
majority of voters.
John Quincy Adams
vs. Andrew Jackson was the first election resembling what those of us who are
alive now experience. These men took
their case to the people stumping from town to town, exaggerating their
patriotism and military records almost beyond credulity while simultaneously
calling into question the virtue of their opponents mother and the
circumstances under which conception took place. Hands would be shaken and babies kissed,
slogans would be spread with songs and signs and promises would be made that if
elected, America would finally be back on track for being the greatest country
the world has ever seen. In other words,
what we see today has been going on for a long time only without television
coverage.
When the people
first started voting there were also laws in some states that limited the vote
to land-holding white men alone. They
represented their families, employees, renters, and chattel slaves. As democracy has deepened in our country the
vote has expanded to virtually every citizen who has reached age 18. Chicago, the most democratic of all American
cities, is even more expansive in voting rights in counting the votes of people
who have been dead and buried for years (the dead need to have a voice too!)
and of course allowing multiple votes as well ("vote early and vote
often!" as the late Mayor Daley is supposed to have said). Our system may be a bit complex and even
clunky in some places, but for the most part it continues to sustain one of
Western Civilizations cherished ideals: that those who govern, do so with the
consent of the governed.
No comments:
Post a Comment